Tag: Nazis

Insufferable Douchebag Donny Deutsch

Assholes gonna be assholes

Ah, the left and their fascination with Nazi comparisons. But, again, when truth does not matter, and morals are inconvenient, you get jackasses like Donny Douche here. This is who MSNBS is, so, take Donny boys advice in November folks. Remember who the wackos and extremists are. Remember who the folks fomenting violence are

Safe-Space Update: Taxpayer-Funded Diversity Nazis Hound Professor – Compare Reagan Library To KKK Camp

Taxpayer-Funded Diversity Bureaucrats Hound Professor, Compare Reagan Library To KKK CAMP – Daily Caller

.

.
A professor at California State University, Northridge is appealing a finding by school officials that he retaliated against students who complained of anti-gay and anti-women discrimination after they voluntarily attended an event concerning family issues at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library for class credit.

The Cal State Northridge professor is Robert O. Lopez.

The taxpayer-funded university’s office of equity and diversity conducted a secret, 245-day investigation against Lopez, a tenured associate professor of English and classics.

When Lopez was finally presented with the secret charges against him, school officials permitted him to defend himself in an interview with Susan Hua, Cal State Northridge’s Title IX Coordinator.

On three occasions during the two-and-a-half hour interview, Hua compared voluntary attendance at a conference at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library to appearing at a Ku Klux Klan camp, Lopez told The Daily Caller.

Throughout the duration of the interview, Lopez also said, Hua did not permit him to see the actual complaint lodged against him or an official list of the charges he faced.

The Reagan Library conference occurred on Oct. 3, 2014. It was entitled “Bonds that Matter” and featured speakers discussing family issues and the rights of children.

Lopez gave an assignment to the students who opted to attend the six-hour conference. The assignment involved creating family-related exhibits drawing on in-class readings about family obligations.

“You should not be commenting on present-day debates about children’s rights, rather giving an objective view of children and family,” Lopez explained in his syllabi.

About 75 percent of Lopez’s approximately 160 students for the fall semester (across four different 300- and 400-level courses) chose to create exhibits and to attend the conference at the Reagan Library, about 40 minutes by car from the Cal State Northridge campus.

Lopez also attended the conference but was not among the five speakers. Students who chose to complete an optional writing assignment instead did not attend.

According to complaining students, conference speakers – all women – made anti-gay and anti-female statements during a question-and-answer session. These alleged statements include “women who use sperm banks are evil” and “gay people cannot be parents.”

Lopez categorically says the students are lying. He has presented a transcript of the Q & A session to prove his claim.

“Gay adoption came up a few times because students prodded the presenters on the topic, straying from the focus of the talks,” the professor has explained.

The students who prodded conference presenters about gay adoption are among the students who then complained about the issue of gay adoption being raised at the conference.

One of the complaining students, a gay English major, claimed to be so distraught after attending the conference on family issues at the conference that he could no longer continue attending Lopez’s class on Greek and Roman mythology and thus failed it.

Lopez disputes this student’s claim, primarily because the student had never enrolled in the mythology course but was instead enrolled in a course concerning American novels. Prior to the conference, the gay student missed 50 percent of the scheduled class sessions for the course in which he was enrolled, Lopez explains, and ultimately missed 85 percent of the classes. The student also turned in no assignments, Lopez says.

“It appears that the allegations against me can be summarized thus: Because I did not warn women and gays not to attend the conference I organized, I caused them to come unprepared for dangerous ideas,” Lopez wrote in his defense this summer. “In other words, the students allege the conference was sufficiently discriminatory against gays that they would have needed trigger warnings before going.”

Cal State Northridge officials cleared Lopez on all the original charges in October. They admitted that an offer of credit for optional attendance at a Reagan Library conference is not intrinsically discriminatory.

However, school officials then found the professor guilty of charges of retaliation – charges which Lopez says school officials only brought later.

In an October 2015 letter, Cal State Northridge provost Yi Li informed Lopez that he had found him guilty of a charge of retaliation by attempting “to intimidate and prevent” complaining students “from exercising their rights” to “report what they perceive to be a hostile learning environment.”

According to Li, one student now remembers that Lopez suggested there was “bad blood” between Lopez and the student. The student also claimed that Lopez threatened her by threatening to withhold an award nomination.

Lopez told TheDC that student was never eligible for any awards. He gave the student an A grade in the course, he added.

“The only thing I can think of is that she may have wanted me to write a letter of recommendation, in which case I might have told her I’m not the right person,” the professor told Campus Reform.

A charge of retaliation against students is a serious one in academia. Lopez faces the possibility of suspension without pay or outright dismissal.

Lopez describes the investigation against him – which has now persisted for nearly 400 days – as a politically-motivated witch hunt by students who oppose him because of his views concerning gay marriage and the fate of the children of gay couples.

“The case of the Reagan Library ‘affair’ is most chilling to me because it shows that universities have created a shadow legal system, in which a scholar can be labeled a ‘non-person’ for a belief he or she holds, and then everything that scholar does is tainted and open to excessive surveillance and investigation,” the professor told TheDC. “The Reagan Library event was not on campus, not mandatory for students, not funded with university funds, and not about gay issues, yet somehow the complainants created an anti-gay charge out of thin air because I organized it and I have been labeled – unfairly – anti-gay.”

The Cal State Northridge equity and diversity staff conducted a clandestine investigation against him and trained students to spy on him, Lopez said.

Lopez is an interesting case. He was raised by a lesbian couple. He is – or was – bisexual. He is now married to a woman. His critics, including the Human Rights Campaign, which advocates heavily for gay and transgender causes, have branded him as a conservative “exporter of hate.”

In 2012, Lopez wrote a piece in Public Discourse reflecting on his experiences as the child of two lesbian parents. The piece caused outrage and alarm among gay marriage advocates.

He “was emotionally very close to my mother’s lesbian partner,” Lopez told LifeSiteNews.com last month, but he was also “was alienated from my father and therefore from half of myself.”

“I oppose any agenda that compromises the sacred rights of children to their maternal and paternal lineages,” Lopez told LifeSiteNews, an anti-abortion website. “Whether it is straight or gay people doing this, I oppose it.”

Lopez has also argued in the cyberpages of American Thinker, a conservative website, that “children have an inalienable right to a mother and father, cannot be bought or sold, and are entitled to know their origins. Whether it is straight people or gay people using divorce, surrogacy, trafficking, or any other means to deny people these rights, I oppose it.”

As a consequence of his position that children deserve a mother and a father, he has been the target of harassment campaigns by gay and lesbian political pressure groups.

A faction of students at Cal State Northridge sees Lopez as a hateful bigot and wants him removed from the faculty, he told TheDC. “They feel it’s a great cause,” he said.

A Change.org petition seeking the dismissal of the charges against Lopez currently has 740 signatures.

The documents which indict Lopez have the names of the students redacted.

.

.

Leftist Anti-Gun Nazis Smacked Down In Federal Court Over DC’s Concealed Carry Permit Restrictions

Federal Judge Smacks Down D.C. Gun Permit Requirement – Daily Caller

.

.
U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. placed a hold on Washington D.C.’s mandate that firearm owners must have a “good reason” to get a concealed carry permit in the District. The judge said the requirement took away citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

Judge Scullin granted a preliminary injunction as a result of a lawsuit brought forth by three gun owners who sought to overturn the bureaucratic D.C. gun law claiming the regulations surrounding it make it impossible for the majority of law abiding individuals to qualify for a D.C. firearms permit.

“For all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms,” Judge Scullin wrote within his 23 page opinion.

Local lawmakers created the D.C. gun permitting process after Scullin ruled the District’s long-time ban on carrying firearms in public was unconstitutional last year. The process was intended to set up a process for residents and non-residents alike to apply for concealed carry permits.

Prior the passage of the law for gun permits, law-abiding citizens with permits from other states were allowed to carry in D.C. for a period time before the District took legal action to end the brief carry period.

.

.

Obama’s FCC Nazis: The First Amendment Does Not Apply To Internet Providers

FCC: First Amendment Does Not Apply To Internet Providers – Moonbattery

Obama’s “net neutrality” power grab doesn’t scare you yet? Then read this:

Two weeks after passage, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) finally released its landmark “net neutrality” regulations Thursday morning.

Among its many determinations, the FCC stated that broadband providers do not enjoy First Amendment protections because they do not have a right to free speech.

“The rules we adopt today do not curtail broadband providers’ free speech rights,” the commission said on page 268 of its decision, noting that because they merely serve as a means for others to express themselves, broadband providers are not entitled to free speech rights themselves.

Makes sense to fascists, I guess.

.

.

.

*VIDEO* Klavan & Whittle: The Nazis Were Socialists, Not Right-Wingers


.

.

Justina Pelletier FINALLY Released After Being Held Captive For 16 Months By Hospital Nazis Who Should All Die In Prison

Justice For Justina: Judge Orders Connecticut Girl To Be Returned To Family – Fox News

.

.
Justina Pelletier is coming home.

A Massachusetts judge ordered the 16-year-old Connecticut girl, who was taken from her family by child welfare advocates more than a year ago, to be returned to her mother and father effective Wednesday. The ruling caps a long-running medical custody dispute that began when two highly-respected Boston hospitals clashed over the girl’s diagnosis. The case sparked national outrage, and led Lou and Linda Pelletier, of West Hartford, Conn., to wage a bitter legal battle.

“To hear the news is overwhelming,” Lou Pelletier told FoxNews.com moments after learning of the ruling. “Now we can certainly begin the healing process.”

The case began when the girl’s parents disagreed with a psychiatric diagnosis given by Boston Children’s Hospital and said they wanted their daughter returned to her original physician at Tufts Medical Center, who had previously treated Justina for mitochondrial disease, a group of rare genetic disorders affecting cellular energy production. The Massachusetts Department of Children and Families moved in, claiming Justina was the victim of “medical child abuse.”

Mat Staver, of the Liberty Counsel, which battled the Bay State bureaucracy on behalf of the Pelletiers, said the ruling handed down by Massachusetts juvenile court Judge Joseph Johnston was well-deserved.

“We are thrilled that Justina will finally be returning home,” Staver said in a statement. “The family looks forward to putting this 16-month nightmare behind them. Justina and her family now begins the process of healing both physically, emotionally, and spiritually.”

In May, Justina was moved from Massachusetts to a facility in Thompson, Conn., allowing her parents to visit with their daughter, but doing little to dampen their determination to win her back for good. In a 45-second, videotaped plea, first posted on a Facebook support page last week, Justina is seen sitting in a chair and pleading plaintively with Johnston.

“All I really want is to be with my family and friends,” the girl says, her voice faltering at times. “You can do it. You’re the one that’s judging this. Please let me go home.”

The judge granted the girl’s wish, after the Massachusetts DCF filed a motion agreeing that the teenager should be returned to her family. Alec Loftus, a spokesman for Massachusetts Health and Human Services Secretary John Polanowicz, confirmed to FoxNews.com last week that the agency was no longer planning to fight the case.

The emotional toll on Justina and her family is one that cannot be measured, Staver said. She has missed out on two years of education, Staver said, and went from becoming a competitive figure skater to being confined in a wheelchair.

Lou Pelletier said he knows his daughter will need time and love from her family to overcome her ordeal.

“She’s coming home tomorrow,” he said. “I think she will want to get adjusted.

“Think of it like a prisoner of war who has been held captive for 16 months,” he continued. “There will be an adjustment period.”

.

.

Obama EPA Nazis Obstructed Fraud Investigation

EPA Officials Obstructed Fraud Investigation – Washington Free Beacon

Several Environmental Protection Agency employees obstructed an investigation into the mismanagement that allowed a senior EPA official to bilk taxpayers for nearly $900,000, the EPA Inspector General said in a letter to Sen. David Vitter (R., La.) released Wednesday.

.

.
EPA employees threatened Inspector General investigators, refused to cooperate, and handed out non-disclosure agreements to other employees to keep them from being interviewed, EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins Jr. wrote in response to a request for information by Vitter on the case.

“Over the past 12 months, there have been several EPA officials who have taken action to prevent [the Office of Investigations] OI from conducting investigations or have attempted to obstruct investigations through intimidation,” Elkins wrote.

John Beale pleaded guilty in September 2013 to time card and travel fraud spanning two decades and amounting to nearly $900,000 in taxpayer dollars. Beale also spent a total of two and a half years absent from work, claiming he was away on CIA business. He was sentenced to 32 months in prison in December 2013.

After closing its criminal investigation, the Inspector General began an audit of the lack of internal controls that allowed Beale to defraud the agency. That audit has implicated a growing number of EPA officials.

“We are starting to see proof of what we had already suspected: John Beale’s time and attendance fraud was the tip of the iceberg at the EPA,” Vitter said in a statement to the Free Beacon. “The whole agency seems to be in complete disarray, which is exactly why we need to have a full [Environment and Public Works] Committee hearing on the fraud surrounding this case and other prevalent problems.”

In the public version of Elkin’s letter released Wednesday, the names of the EPA employees in question were redacted. However, the Free Beacon has obtained an unredacted version of the letter.

The letter identified one of the alleged obstructionist employees as Steve Williams in the EPA’s Office of Homeland Security (OHS).

“During the course of an OI administrative investigation, Mr. Williams approached an OI special agent in a threatening manner, preventing the special agent from conducting her official duties in an ongoing investigation involving Mr. Williams and other members of OHS,” Elkins wrote. “Additionally, Mr. Williams issued non-disclosure agreements to EPA employees that prevented these employees from cooperating with [the Office of the Inspector General] OIG investigations.”

“The Federal Protective Service conducted a criminal investigation and referred its finding of facts to support an assault charge to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (USAO),” Elkins continued. “The USAO declined prosecution and referred the matter back to the EPA OIG for administrative action as necessary.”

Williams’ office originally attempted to investigate Beale’s fraud, a move the Inspector General said set their own investigation back by months.

Elkins also identified Nancy Dunham in the EPA’s Office of General Counsel and John Martin at OHS as two other employees who impeded the Inspector General’s investigation.

OIG agents interviewed Dunham during its criminal investigation of Beale, but she refused to be interviewed for an audit of the management issues that failed to prevent Beale’s fraud.

“A potential gap in information exists due to Ms. Dunham’s noncompliance,” Elkins wrote.

Dunham told investigators that she learned about Beale’s pay issues in late 2012. However, Elkins wrote that his office “later developed information through other interviews which indicates that Ms. Dunham hay have been aware of Mr. Beale’s pay issues several months or even a year prior to what she told OI during her interview.”

According to Elkins, Martin left his interview early and later issued non-disclosure agreements to EPA employees.

The EPA and the EPA OIG originally credited EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy with bringing Beale’s fraud to the attention of investigators after first becoming suspicious of him in April 2012.

However, emails and reports released by the EPA in response to requests by Vitter revealed that McCarthy was aware of issues related to Beale’s pay as early as 2011.

One February 2011 email obtained by Vitter’s office said: “Gina is reluctant to finalize [the cancellation of Beale’s bonuses] unless OARM Craig gives her the okay that the White House is aware and there will not be any political fallout.”

Elkins said the Inspector General did not investigate White House involvement in the case.

The EPA did not respond to a request for comment.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

NSA-Nazis Overstepping Legal Authority Thousands Of Times A Year

NSA Broke Privacy Rules Thousands Of Times Per Year, Audit Finds – Washington Post

.

The National Security Agency has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008, according to an internal audit and other top-secret documents.

Most of the infractions involve unauthorized surveillance of Americans or foreign intelligence targets in the United States, both of which are restricted by statute and executive order. They range from significant violations of law to typographical errors that resulted in unintended interception of U.S. e-mails and telephone calls.

.
……….

The documents, provided earlier this summer to The Washington Post by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, include a level of detail and analysis that is not routinely shared with Congress or the special court that oversees surveillance. In one of the documents, agency personnel are instructed to remove details and substitute more generic language in reports to the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

In one instance, the NSA decided that it need not report the unintended surveillance of Americans. A notable example in 2008 was the interception of a “large number” of calls placed from Washington when a programming error confused the U.S. area code 202 for 20, the international dialing code for Egypt, according to a “quality assurance” review that was not distributed to the NSA’s oversight staff.

In another case, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has authority over some NSA operations, did not learn about a new collection method until it had been in operation for many months. The court ruled it unconstitutional.

The Obama administration has provided almost no public information about the NSA’s compliance record. In June, after promising to explain the NSA’s record in “as transparent a way as we possibly can,” Deputy Attorney General James Cole described extensive safeguards and oversight that keep the agency in check. “Every now and then, there may be a mistake,” Cole said in congressional testimony.

The NSA audit obtained by The Post, dated May 2012, counted 2,776 incidents in the preceding 12 months of unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications. Most were unintended. Many involved failures of due diligence or violations of standard operating procedure. The most serious incidents included a violation of a court order and unauthorized use of data about more than 3,000 Americans and green-card holders.

In a statement in response to questions for this article, the NSA said it attempts to identify problems “at the earliest possible moment, implement mitigation measures wherever possible, and drive the numbers down.” The government was made aware of The Post’s intention to publish the documents that accompany this article online.

“We’re a human-run agency operating in a complex environment with a number of different regulatory regimes, so at times we find ourselves on the wrong side of the line,” a senior NSA official said in an interview, speaking with White House permission on the condition of anonymity.

“You can look at it as a percentage of our total activity that occurs each day,” he said. “You look at a number in absolute terms that looks big, and when you look at it in relative terms, it looks a little different.”

There is no reliable way to calculate from the number of recorded compliance issues how many Americans have had their communications improperly collected, stored or distributed by the NSA.

The causes and severity of NSA infractions vary widely. One in 10 incidents is attributed to a typographical error in which an analyst enters an incorrect query and retrieves data about U.S phone calls or e-mails.

But the more serious lapses include unauthorized access to intercepted communications, the distribution of protected content and the use of automated systems without built-in safeguards to prevent unlawful surveillance.

The May 2012 audit, intended for the agency’s top leaders, counts only incidents at the NSA’s Fort Meade headquarters and other ­facilities in the Washington area. Three government officials, speak­ing on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified matters, said the number would be substantially higher if it included other NSA operating units and regional collection centers.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who did not receive a copy of the 2012 audit until The Post asked her staff about it, said in a statement late Thursday that the committee “can and should do more to independently verify that NSA’s operations are appropriate, and its reports of compliance incidents are accurate.”

Despite the quadrupling of the NSA’s oversight staff after a series of significant violations in 2009, the rate of infractions increased throughout 2011 and early 2012. An NSA spokesman declined to disclose whether the trend has continued since last year.

One major problem is largely unpreventable, the audit says, because current operations rely on technology that cannot quickly determine whether a foreign mobile phone has entered the United States.

In what appears to be one of the most serious violations, the NSA diverted large volumes of international data passing through fiber-optic cables in the United States into a repository where the material could be stored temporarily for processing and selection.

The operation to obtain what the agency called “multiple communications transactions” collected and commingled U.S. and foreign e-mails, according to an article in SSO News, a top-secret internal newsletter of the NSA’s Special Source Operations unit. NSA lawyers told the court that the agency could not practicably filter out the communications of Americans.

In October 2011, months after the program got underway, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruled that the collection effort was unconstitutional. The court said that the methods used were “deficient on statutory and constitutional grounds,” according to a top-secret summary of the opinion, and it ordered the NSA to comply with standard privacy protections or stop the program.

James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, has acknowledged that the court found the NSA in breach of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, but the Obama administration has fought a Freedom of Information lawsuit that seeks the opinion.

Generally, the NSA reveals nothing in public about its errors and infractions. The unclassified versions of the administration’s semiannual reports to Congress feature blacked-out pages under the headline “Statistical Data Relating to Compliance Incidents.”

Members of Congress may read the unredacted documents, but only in a special secure room, and they are not allowed to take notes. Fewer than 10 percent of lawmakers employ a staff member who has the security clearance to read the reports and provide advice about their meaning and significance.

The limited portions of the reports that can be read by the public acknowledge “a small number of compliance incidents.”

Under NSA auditing guidelines, the incident count does not usually disclose the number of Americans affected.

“What you really want to know, I would think, is how many innocent U.S. person communications are, one, collected at all, and two, subject to scrutiny,” said Julian Sanchez, a research scholar and close student of the NSA at the Cato Institute.

The documents provided by Snowden offer only glimpses of those questions. Some reports make clear that an unauthorized search produced no records. But a single “incident” in February 2012 involved the unlawful retention of 3,032 files that the surveillance court had ordered the NSA to destroy, according to the May 2012 audit. Each file contained an undisclosed number of telephone call records.

One of the documents sheds new light on a statement by NSA Director Keith B. Alexander last year that “we don’t hold data on U.S. citizens.”

Some Obama administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, have defended Alexander with assertions that the agency’s internal definition of “data” does not cover “metadata” such as the trillions of American call records that the NSA is now known to have collected and stored since 2006. Those records include the telephone numbers of the parties and the times and durations of conversations, among other details, but not their content or the names of callers.

The NSA’s authoritative def­inition of data includes those call records. “Signals Intelligence Management Directive 421,” which is quoted in secret oversight and auditing guidelines, states that “raw SIGINT data… includes, but is not limited to, unevaluated and/or unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice, and some forms of computer-generated data, such as call event records and other Digital Network Intelligence (DNI) metadata as well as DNI message text.”

In the case of the collection effort that confused calls placed from Washington with those placed from Egypt, it is unclear what the NSA meant by a “large number” of intercepted calls. A spokesman declined to discuss the matter.

The NSA has different reporting requirements for each branch of government and each of its legal authorities. The “202” collection was deemed irrelevant to any of them. “The issue pertained to Metadata ONLY so there were no defects to report,” according to the author of the secret memo from March 2013.

The large number of database query incidents, which involve previously collected communications, confirms long-standing suspicions that the NSA’s vast data banks – with code names such as MARINA, PINWALE and XKEYSCORE – house a considerable volume of information about Americans. Ordinarily the identities of people in the United States are masked, but intelligence “customers” may request unmasking, either one case at a time or in standing orders.

In dozens of cases, NSA personnel made careless use of the agency’s extraordinary powers, according to individual auditing reports. One team of analysts in Hawaii, for example, asked a system called DISHFIRE to find any communications that mentioned both the Swedish manufacturer Ericsson and “radio” or “radar” – a query that could just as easily have collected on people in the United States as on their Pakistani military target.

The NSA uses the term “incidental” when it sweeps up the records of an American while targeting a foreigner or a U.S. person who is believed to be involved in terrorism. Official guidelines for NSA personnel say that kind of incident, pervasive under current practices, “does not constitute a… violation” and “does not have to be reported” to the NSA inspector general for inclusion in quarterly reports to Congress. Once added to its databases, absent other restrictions, the communications of Americans may be searched freely.

In one required tutorial, NSA collectors and analysts are taught to fill out oversight forms without giving “extraneous information” to “our FAA overseers.” FAA is a reference to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which granted broad new authorities to the NSA in exchange for regular audits from the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and periodic reports to Congress and the surveillance court.

Using real-world examples, the “Target Analyst Rationale Instructions” explain how NSA employees should strip out details and substitute generic descriptions of the evidence and analysis behind their targeting choices.

“I realize you can read those words a certain way,” said the high-ranking NSA official who spoke with White House authority, but the instructions were not intended to withhold information from auditors. “Think of a book of individual recipes,” he said. Each target “has a short, concise description,” but that is “not a substitute for the full recipe that follows, which our overseers also have access to.”

Julie Tate and Carol D. Leonnig contributed to this report.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Why Barack Obama Should Resign

Why Barack Obama Should Resign – Instapundit

Just for the record, this is what it looked like for a man who made a film that made the Obama Administration uncomfortable:

Here’s the key bit: “Just after midnight Saturday morning, authorities descended on the Cerritos home of the man believed to be the filmmaker behind the anti-Muslim movie that has sparked protests and rioting in the Muslim world.”

When taking office, the President does not swear to create jobs. He does not swear to “grow the economy.” He does not swear to institute “fairness.” The only oath the President takes is this one:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

By sending – literally – brownshirted enforcers to engage in – literally – a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. You can try to pretty this up (It’s just about possible probation violations! Sure.), or make excuses or draw distinctions, but that’s what’s happened. It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.

He won’t resign, of course. First, the President has the appreciation of free speech that one would expect from a Chicago Machine politician, which is to say, none. Second, he’s not getting any pressure. Indeed, the very press that went crazy over Ari Fleischer’s misrepresented remarks seems far less interested in the actions of an administration that I repeat, literally sent brown-shirted enforcers to launch a midnight knock on a filmmaker’s door.

But Obama’s behavior – and that of his enablers in the press – has laid down a marker for those who are paying attention. By these actions he is, I repeat, unfit to hold office. I hope and expect that the voters will agree in November.

Related thoughts from Ann Althouse:

That’s a scarf wrapped around his face, not a “towel.” Is the L.A. Times nudging us to think of this man as a “towelhead”? And look at this headline in the Daily Mail: “The man who set the Middle East ablaze hides his face in shame…” Shame? If I were imputing a motivation to this man, I’d say he has a fully justified fear of becoming a recognizable face.

But I think our government is delusional if it thinks the people who are rioting in Africa and killing our diplomats would – if they knew the facts – see individuals like Nakoula as the proper focus of their rage. They don’t believe the necessary premise: freedom as the superior value. As long as they favor a system in which blasphemy is outlawed and severely punished, they will continue to blame the American government for standing back and allowing blasphemy to flourish and flow everywhere. What good does it do to ask them to please understand our system? They hate this system.

Meanwhile, our government would scapegoat a free citizen. It’s not even effectual scapegoating.

Note Althouse’s strikethrough. You are not “free” when police can come to your door after midnight and demand that you “come downtown and answer a few questions” over a film you’ve made. Voluntarily, of course…

It’s the deputies who should be covering their faces out of shame, but the real shame is on the man at the top of the hierarchy.

UPDATE: Reader J.M. Hanes writes: “I went berserk over the L.A.T. Nakoula photo too, but on top of the brownshirted Constitutional debacle, one incredibly consequential point has gotten lost in the shuffle: Could any visual more effectively reinforce the Arab street’s belief that the U.S. government can, in fact, punish blasphemers if it so chooses?”

Good point, and it ties in well to these comments by Eugene Volokh.

Behavior that gets rewarded, gets repeated. (Relatedly, “once you have paid him the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane.”) Say that the murders in Libya lead us to pass a law banning some kinds of speech that Muslims find offensive or blasphemous, or reinterpreting our First Amendment rules to make it possible to punish such speech under some existing law.

What then will extremist Muslims see? They killed several Americans (maybe itself a plus from their view). In exchange, they’ve gotten America to submit to their will. And on top of that, they’ve gotten back at blasphemers, and deter future blasphemy. A triple victory.

Would this (a) satisfy them that now America is trying to prevent blasphemy, so there’s no reason to kill over the next offensive incident, or (b) make them want more such victories? My money would be on (b).

And this is especially so since there’ll be plenty of other excuses for such killings in the future. It’s not like Muslim extremists have a clearly defined, unvarying, and limited range of speech they are willing to kill over (e.g., desecrating Korans and nothing but). Past history has already proved that; consider the bombings and murders triggered by the publication of the Satanic Verses.

What’s more, there are lots of people in the Muslim world who are happy to stoke hostility… That’s why it seems to me to actually be safer – not just better for First Amendment principles, but actually safer for Americans – to hold the line now, and make clear that American speech is protected even if foreigners choose to respond to it with murder. That would send the message, “murder won’t get you what you want.” Not a perfectly effective message to be sure, but a better one than “murder will get you what you want.”

Read the whole thing. Especially if you work in the White House or the Justice Department.

ANOTHER UPDATE: More from Donald Sensing. “There is no possible justification for voting for this man in November. None, period.”

And reader Joel Mackey writes: “For the people that think that man had it coming due to prior run ins with the law, they should realize that they commit 3 felonies a day, the feds have all the reason they need to knock on your door at midnight, if you cause problems for them.” Yes, given that the laws are so complex that pretty much everyone is a felon, prosecutorial discretion rules. And that discretion needs to be bounded by political norms that you don’t abuse it just to go after people who express ideas you don’t want expressed. Those norms come from the First Amendment, but if there’s no cost to violating them, they won’t last.

MORE: Reader Richard Eastland writes:

Those who think he had it coming because of probation are sticking their heads in the sand.

He wasn’t hounded because he violated probation. He was persecuted because he made a video that the federal government is upset with.

Regardless of the “how” they are justifying their actions, the “why” is completely clear.

If you use his, please use my name. I refuse to be bullied by those who would use force to silence, be they terrorists or my own government.

Good for you. And reader Paul Crabtree writes: “Although the midnight raid to punish free speech is beyond deplorable, I guess we should be relieved that the Nobel Prize winner didn’t order a drone strike on his house.” Heh. We probably don’t have to worry about those… in the first term.

MORE STILL: Reader Jack Moody writes:

Prosecuting someone because they broke the law is one thing.

Only prosecuting someone who broke the law, after they embarrassed the administration, is gangster government, extortion, and the road to totalitarianism.

And that’s pretty clearly what’s happened here. Though to be fair, they didn’t actually prosecute him. Just took him downtown to answer a few questions. Voluntarily. After midnight. With a lot of TV cameras there, somehow.

And sorry, claims that this was just a routine probation matter don’t pass the laugh test. They’re just pure hackery.

And reader Rob Beile paraphrases Dean Wormer: “Incompetent, Thuggish and Cowardly is no way to lead The Free World, Mr. President.”

MORE STILL: Reader Jack Moss writes: “Probation is not a law enforcement function, it’s under the court. If his probation officer wanted to question him about the use of a computer, that broke his probation fine. But that wouldn’t include questions about making an anti-Islamic movie. It’s irrelevant. That means that the FBI showed up outside their jurisdiction for a reason given by their superiors. The question then is who ordered them there.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

The 99%: Official List Of Occupy Wall Street’s Supporters, Sponsors And Sympathizers

The 99%: Official List Of Occupy Wall Street’s Supporters, Sponsors And Sympathizers – Pajamas Media

The Occupy Wall Street movement has received so much media coverage in recent weeks that it’s nearly impossible to keep abreast of all the developments. So many endorsements and criticisms coming from all directions enter the news cycle in such rapid succession that even the most dedicated news junkies may have missed out on many of the pronouncements. Supporters and detractors of OWS both might find it useful to have a handy all-inclusive list of who has endorsed or embraced the protest.

To satisfy that demand, we hereby present a list of groups, organizations, individuals and entities that have expressed their support for, sponsorship of, or sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Note: All entries on this list are real and verified. Below each entry you will find a series of source links documenting the support for OWS. We have striven in almost all cases to reference either first-hand statements by the groups or individuals themselves, hosted on their own Web sites; or videos of the people in question voicing their support for OWS at various Occupations; or news reports from reliable mainstream networks; or articles by publications or organizations sympathetic to the Occupy movement; or indisputable evidence, whatever the source. As a result, it cannot be claimed that these statements of support were made up or distorted by detractors of the Occupy movement.

As each new controversial endorsement has appeared over the last month, OWS supporters have dismissed them one by one as “isolated examples” that don’t reflect any overall trend toward extremism. But when viewed in aggregate like this, it becomes much more difficult to dismiss any individual endorsement as an aberration; instead, an undeniable pattern emerges.

This list is obviously incomplete; we hope to update it over the upcoming days and weeks.

If you think we’ve left out any well-known endorsers for which there is solid evidence, then please post suggestions and evidentiary links in the comments section; but please try to supply links that will stand up to any potential claims of misrepresentation.

If you disagree with the inclusion of any of the entries on this list, please post your reasoning and any contravening source links in the comments section, and we will take the evidence into account when updating the list.

Members of the media, bloggers, activists, OWS supporters and detractors as well are all free to repost this list, in whole or in part, without any restrictions. Do note, however, that it may be updated over time, so make sure to get the latest version.

And without further ado, here is…

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

The 99%: Official list of Occupy Wall Street’s supporters, sponsors and sympathizers

Communist Party USA
Sources: Communist Party USA, OWS speech, The Daily Caller

American Nazi Party
Sources: Media Matters, American Nazi Party, White Honor, Sunshine State News

Ayatollah Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran
Sources: The Guardian, Tehran Times, CBS News

Barack Obama
Sources: ABC News, CBS News, ForexTV, NBC New York

The government of North Korea
Sources: Korean Central News Agency (North Korean state-controlled news outlet), The Marxist-Leninist, Wall Street Journal, Times of India

Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam
Sources: video statement (starting at 8:28), Black in America, Weasel Zippers, Philadelphia Weekly

Revolutionary Communist Party
Sources: Revolutionary Communist Party, Revolution newspaper, in-person appearance

David Duke
Sources: Talking Points Memo, video statement, davidduke.com

Joe Biden
Sources: Talking Points Memo, video statement, Mother Jones

Hugo Chavez
Sources: Mother Jones, Reuters, Examiner.com

Revolutionary Guards of Iran
Sources: Associated Press, FARS News Agency, UPI

Black Panthers (original)
Sources: in-person appearance, Occupy Oakland, Oakland Tribune

Socialist Party USA
Sources: Socialist Party USA, IndyMedia, The Daily Caller

US Border Guard
Sources: White Reference, www.usborderguard.com, Gateway Pundit, Just Another Day blog

Industrial Workers of the World
Sources: IWW web site, iww.org, in-person appearances

CAIR
Sources: in-person appearance, Washington Post, CAIR, CAIR New York

Nancy Pelosi
Sources: Talking Points Memo, video statement, ABC News, The Weekly Standard

Communist Party of China
Sources: People’s Daily (Communist Party organ), Reuters, chinataiwan.org, The Telegraph

Hezbollah
Sources: almoqawama.org, almoqawama.org (2), almoqawama.org (3), wikipedia

9/11Truth.org
Sources: 911truth.org (1), 911truth.org (2), 911truth.org (3)

International Bolshevik Tendency
Sources: bolshevik.org, Wire Magazine

Anonymous
Sources: Adbusters, The Guardian, video statement

White Revolution
Sources: whiterevolution.com

International Socialist Organization
Sources: Socialist Worker, socialistworker.org, in-person appearance

PressTV (Iranian government outlet)
Sources: PressTV, wikipedia

Marxist Student Union
Sources: Marxist Student Union, Big Government, marxiststudentunion.blogspot.com

Freedom Road Socialist Organization
Sources: FightBack News, fightbacknews.org

ANSWER
Sources: ANSWER press release, ANSWER web site, Xinhua

Party for Socialism and Liberation
Sources: Liberation News (1), pslweb.org, The Daily Free Press,Liberation News (2)

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Everything You Need To Know About The Leftist ‘Occupy’ Movement In America

Michigan Woman Facing Jail Time For Her Vegetable Garden

Michigan Woman Facing Jail Time For Her Vegetable Garden – Poor Richard’s News

A Michigan woman has found herself in court defending an evil, evil, vegetable garden. Julie Bass has ignored Oak Park officials’ warnings and fines and now faces misdemeanor charges for her veggies in the front yard. The city code only states that front yards need to have “suitable live plant material.” According to her blog, Bass is facing up to 93 days of jail time.

.
Vodpod videos no longer available.

From Fox Detroit:

“I think it’s sad that the City of Oak Park that’s already strapped for cash is paying a lot of money to have a prosecutor bothering us,” Bass told FOX 2’s Alexis Wiley.

“That’s not what we want to see in a front yard,” said Oak Park City Planner Kevin Rulkowski.

Why? The city is pointing to a code that says a front yard has to have suitable, live, plant material. The big question is what’s “suitable?”

We asked Bass whether she thinks she has suitable, live, plant material in her front yard.

“It’s definitely live. It’s definitely plant. It’s definitely material. We think it’s suitable,” she said.

So, we asked Rulkowski why it’s not suitable.

“If you look at the definition of what suitable is in Webster’s dictionary, it will say common. So, if you look around and you look in any other community, what’s common to a front yard is a nice, grass yard with beautiful trees and bushes and flowers,” he said.

I’m sorry Mr. Rulkowski, but Websters does not a legal argument make. Oh, and that definition he’s referencing is not in Webster’s dictionary. The only thing close to it is labeled “obsolete.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Ah yes, Stalingrad WAS wonderful

Hand it to Stacy McCain, he is right most of the time. Take his position on Nazis and Communists killing each other for instance.

Earlier this afternoon, I remarked on Twitter how wonderful the Battle of Stalingrad was. Nazis killing Commies and Commies killing Nazis — killing each other by the thousands, day after day, week after week, for months on end.

It was a win-win, and the only sad thing is that the battle ended before every last one of those totalitarian bastards got killed.

Yep! Cannot argue there